The true process of judicial review

I’ve had the opportunity to read through my colleague’s thoughts on Healthcare.  While well meaning, this post unfortunately reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial process.  The Supreme Court does not merely “decide” when to determine whether or not an act of Congress is constitutional or not.  There is a carefully-developed process.  This process was carefully developed to ensure that the Court considers only those issues that most demand its attention.  The Court, first and foremost, cannot consider the constitutionality of comparing proposals.  First, Congress has to actually pass a law that is then signed by the President.  Then, lawsuits are filed on the district court level challenging the constitutionality of the act.  Decisions are made in those suits which are then appealed to one of several courts of appeals.  The court of appeals then passes judgment on the wisdom of the district court of opinion.  Generally, the case only makes it to the Supreme Court if the appellate courts disagree.  This process takes time, but is important to ensure that the Supreme Court’s time is dedicated only to issue upon which there is true disagreement.  In this case, as the “Obamacare” case has worked its way through the judicial process, various appellate courts have disagreed on the constitutionality of this law.  This is a valid reason for the Supreme Court to consider the case.  If the appellate circuits were to agree on the constitutionality of this law, then there would be no reason for the Supreme Court to consider the issue.  It may seem that this case is convenientttly designed for political purposes, but this is, in fact, a accurate reflection of judicial review of an act of Congress as our founders intended – through carefully-orchestrated judicial review.  While I agree that at its core, politics underlies nearly all decisions of every branch of government, this case seems to be following a course that is typical of all important legislation.  It would be unfair to judge that the Supreme Court is scheduling this case differently merely for political purposes.